The Functions of Patronage in American Party Politics: An Empirical Reappraisal

Gump, W. Robert

doi:10.2307/2110251

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, patronage benefits can simply be considered as a catch‐all category that characterizes the extent to which appointees provide nonpolicy goals to the president or the president's party—for example, by nominating a fundraiser to a plum post, presidents can send signals to other potential fundraisers that raising money for the president or the president's party may lead to an appointment to a high‐profile position. In short, these positions (as well as other forms of patronage) are distributed with the goal of furthering personal and party goals, be they organizational, electoral, or personal (e.g., Folke, Hirano, and Snyder ; Gump ; Hollibaugh ; Hollibaugh, Horton, and Lewis ; Johnston ; Lewis ; Lewis ; Pollock ; Souraf ; Wilson ).…”

Section: Trust and Political Appointeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Appointments and Public Trust

Hollibaugh¹

2016

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their responsibility for federal policy implementation in the United States, little research has focused on how presidential nominees and appointees affect public opinion. This study offers the first systematic examination of this overlooked phenomenon. Using a survey with an embedded experimental manipulation, we find that perceived nominee competence is associated with increased trust in government in general, whereas perceptions of favoritism or patronage—characterized here as the nomination of campaign fundraisers—are associated with decreased levels of trust in the same. Notably, perceived nominee ideology has no perceptible effect on trust in government.

show abstract

Section: Trust and Political Appointeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Appointments and Public Trust

Hollibaugh¹

2016

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gump argued that the use of patronage as a party‐building tool was functional, although mixed, in its impact, stating, “[P]atronage has (1) some value to chairmen in maintaining their position in the organization; (2) some value, albeit quite limited, in generating campaign contributions; and (3) some value in obtaining campaign effort” (1971, 107). Gump also noted that “one‐third of the chairmen reported giving some attention to a racial minority when dispensing patronage,” but that less than one‐tenth considered the use of religion as a factor (1971, 93).…”

Section: Examining the Functions Of Patronagementioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Patronage? A Critical Reexamination

Bearfield

2008

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a long and storied history, patronage and the functions it plays in American politics and public administration are still very much a mystery. This paper examines how patronage has been used and understood in American political science and public administration. The author calls for a reexamination of the concept based on developments found in the field of anthropology. In an effort to generate future scholarship, the author introduces a typology of patronage styles based on this reexamination.

show abstract

“…For example, President Bill Clinton famously wanted an executive branch drawn from diverse demographics—one that “look[ed] like America” (Weko , 101). Gump () argues that patronage has value in “generating campaign contributions” and “obtaining campaign effort” (107). See also Parsneau ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, President Bill Clinton famously wanted an executive branch drawn from diverse demographics-one that "look[ed] like America"(Weko 1995, 101) Gump (1971). argues that patronage…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidents and Patronage

Hollibaugh¹,

Horton

Lewis

2014

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do presidents select appointees based upon campaign experience and connections? The answer to this question has important implications for our understanding of presidential management and political leadership. This paper presents a theory explaining where presidents place different types of appointees and why, focusing on differences in ideology, competence, and non-policy patronage benefits among potential appointees. We develop a formal model and test its implications with new data on 1,307 persons appointed in the first six months of the Obama Administration. The empirical results broadly support the theory, suggesting that President Obama was more likely to place appointees selected for non-policy patronage reasons in agencies off his agenda, in agencies that shared his policy views, and where appointees are least able to affect agency performance. We conclude that patronage continues to play an important role in American politics with important consequences for campaigns, presidential politics, and governance.Keywords: president, appointment, patronage, agency, appointee 1 Presidents and PatronageThe proper means of filling appointed government positions has been controversial since before the drafting of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued that "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce good administration" and lauded the Constitution's appointment process. 2 According to Hamilton, presidents would "investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled" and thereby increase the chances that offices would be filled persons of ability. 3 Hamilton's defense of the Article II appointment powers rested upon the belief that presidential appointment would lead to the selection of persons on the basis of merit rather than personal connections, "private and party likings and dislikes…", or unseemly political exchange. 4 The long history of presidential appointments in the United States challenges Hamilton's optimism, at least for some positions and agencies (See e.g., Fish 1904; Friedrich 1937;Kaufman 1965;Skowronek 1982;Van Riper 1958;White 1948White , 1954Wilson 1887). Starting with George Washington, but accelerating notably under Andrew Jackson and his successors, presidents have named persons to administration jobs at least partly in exchange for electoral or political support.Reformers hoped to curb the excesses of the spoils-based personnel system with the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883; however, actual results fell short of their aspirations. 5 Indeed, despite 2 Rossiter, ed. 1961. Federalist 68, 414. Hamilton particularly lauded the Constitution's mode of selection relative to other possible modes such as legislative selection.3 Rossiter, ed. 1961. Federalist 76, 456. 4 Ibid. 5 22 Stat. 403 (1883). For accounts of the enactment of the act see Johnson and Libecap 1994, ch. 2; Skowronek 1982, ch. 3; Theriault 2003. 2 Presidents and Patronage the enactment of the Pendleton Act and subsequent reforms, tho...

show abstract

The Functions of Patronage in American Party Politics: An Empirical Reappraisal

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Presidential Appointments and Public Trust

Presidential Appointments and Public Trust

What Is Patronage? A Critical Reexamination

Presidents and Patronage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About